Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Are We Caring for Orphans or Creating Them?

I wrote a post in October on Developing World Orphanages and some of the deceptions involved what has become an industry. I recently read a penetrating expose of has become a fully-orbed industry of adoption in Foreign Policy. "The Lie We Love" by E.J. Graff does a great job of thoroughly explaining how the exorbitant prices of international adoption have essentially created an industry of exploitation and human trafficking. "Westerners have been sold the myth of a world orphan crisis" he says. I will quickly try to recap the main points, for a more detailed explanation click the link and read the article for yourself. This industry has developed due to a confluence of developments. In the West, there are fewer babies being put up for adoption anymore. Also, the Western trend of waiting for a while to have children decreases the percentage of pregnancy. Combine those trends with the rising popularity of trying to relieve poverty in the world through adopting and you have a huge number of families hoping to adopt internationally. The numbers have spiked in the last fifteen years especially. It should be noted, however, that the demand is only for healthy babies. Graff states:

There are simply not enough healthy, adoptable infants to meet Western demand—and there's too much Western money in search of children. As a result, many international adoption agencies work not to find homes for needy children but to find children for Western homes.

When the adoption costs from $15,000 to $35,000 per child, one can see how this would be tempting in many economically-challenged nations. The lack of regulation in many developing countries provides an opportunity for the system to be exploited. It is that much easier with the levels of corruption in many developing nations.

So, what about those millions and millions of orphans we hear about? The figures are deceptive. First of all, orphan is sometimes defined as one parent dead or missing (as UNICEF does). This is not the Western connotation of orphan, we consider one orphaned when both parents are dead or missing. Two other factors are important to remember. Most orphans (95%) listed in the statistics are over the age of 5. Secondly, many orphans are physically disadvantaged. The truth is that a healthy baby born—in even the most dire of poverty—is wanted by the family. In the rare event that the baby is not going to cared for by his/her family, there is enough demand within the country that the baby can be adopted within the same country. The article makes the claim that if that enormous pile of cash did not exchange hands there would be zero healthy babies without a home in many of the nations. The amount of money involved has encouraged the terrible exploitation of the poor and minorities in many developing nations. Babies quickly become "paper orphans" through the manipulation of the official documentation.

The extremely high demand for healthy babies from wealthy western nations has created a business that will not go away unless we become wiser about these issues. As it is, we are essentially creating orphans by purchasing them from poor, disadvantaged families.

Scripture is clear that we are to care for those disadvantaged like orphans widows. But James 1:27 encourages us "to visit orphans and widows in their affliction", not buy them from impoverished or oppressed families. We need to seek the well-being of families in poverty so as to minimize the number of true orphans in the world.

10 comments:

I am not sure I could totally agree with this article. I guess I would have to see substantial evidence as to how exactly the developing countries are exploiting the poor for this industry. I know that in Thailand and Cambodia at least, many children are abandoned, not stolen from their families.

i guess my current stance lies in the fact that in many developing countries, there are more than enough abandoned in orphanages to where the state doesn't need to steal the children from their parents. Yes, while it may be a money making business, and while it may not be the most sustainable way of caring for orphans, I don't see the evil of foreign adoptions that the article sees.

I guess what I take away from the article (for me) is do A LOT of research before adopting trying to figure out where the child comes from, if any relatives remain a part of that child's life, if the child has any living parents. etc...

Tim, are you saying I look like an a-hole? Just kidding, that is a good question. But then I read the story in the FP article about the woman who adopts a little girl from Cambodia who was an "orphan". Once the girl learns enough English, she begins to tell the woman about her parents, brothers and sisters back in Cambodia. The woman felt duped and is now campaigning against these agencies. In my mind, the more awareness that can be raised the less these sad stories will have to be repeated.

Chris,I think most of the ones abandoned, at least in Thailand (don't personally know as much about Cambodia), tend to be older kids. The article talks about there being legitimate orphans age 5 and above who don't have family capable of caring for them. And you do have to wonder, when babies are "abandoned" at orphanages, did those officials have some kind of contact with the parent(s) that they don't report in which they provide some kind of financial incentive? Just a thought, but, given what the article says, it might not be surprising. The tough question is, when one or both parents still are alive but can't afford to care for the child and neither can relatives, is it better to allow that child to be adopted? Thailand offers financial help to families before they have to consider adoption, which is great, but I don't know how many poor countries are willing to do that. Karen

Yes, I absolutely think caution should be taken, but I would worry that the extreme side of this is that not anyone would adopt, which I feel would be a wrong move. And yes, perhaps we should look first towards adopting the sick (such as AIDS orphans) or the older ones first. Usually when battling one side, we adopt the extreme of the other side, when being in the middle is usually the best option.

I work with an organization that partners with orphanages in Cambodia as well as India and Myanmar with the full intent of creating SELF-sustainability in that country - by the love of Jesus through the people He sent as help.

In Cambodia, they are often dropped off by relatives or neighbors (or found) because their parents died, could not care for them and left to find work, or were abusive and didn't want them. So the organization finds SPONSORSHIPS - which give the children shelter, food, education, and Christian caregivers - all with the intent of building up godly, capable leaders in the next generation.

So, all that to say - a very healthy option is to sponsor a child through a trustworthy organization and find that they grow healthy, close to God, in their own culture, and there is no market for "buying them" created. Most times you can keep monthly contact with the child and, in my personal experience, they see you AS their mother and/or father, pray for you and are so very thankful for you.

This is not to say global adoptions have no place - where children have no option for care or a loving family, they need help. But at the same time, look and see, my fellow wealthy, Christian Americans, that we have tens of thousands of children right here who need loving homes through fostercare and adoption. They are OUR next generation. And our government PAYS US to do it. It's often stickier...less romantic. It requires some time if they need counseling visits or caseworker check-ins earlier on. But, by personal experience I can say - it's HARD and its WORTH IT.